Greyhound Racing To Be Shut Down

[moosmum]

Seems to me Zero tolerance is fine, but only when every one understands why so are practicing it at an individual level.

Information on how to achieve best results with least cost ( not just financial ) means poor practices are more likely to be shunned. Because people have expectations and people have an understanding why poor practices don't support those expectations.

So we all need to start talking about what we should be expecting from those who breed dogs,what we should expect from dogs, and why.

That is the only way people CAN be responsible. When they can see the value and benefits brought by GOOD practices.

If they SEE and understand how certain practices add value, they will look for that. Or be shunned in favor of those who do.

Shunned or favored as a group, if thats how they identify themselves .

If the group identity comes 1st, then that group identity will decide the value of those benefits to itself before it allows them to gain favor within.

Individuals must benefit their fixed group identity to gain favor in that group.

But the ultimate judgement comes from outside the group, from the community.

If breeders are going to say they know better and should be allowed to do things as they have always been done, then they better be demonstrating the success and value of those methods to the community. By Community standards, not just their own group identity standards.

Its community standards and expectations they they depend on. So they had better be showing that what they do makes the community better. That there are benefits to the community in supporting breeders.

And that means making sure breeders understand what the community expects of them and the dogs they breed, beyond their group identity.

All dog breeders ARE in the same basket. It is a single species and the expectations of the community will apply to any breeder. Registered or not.

Zero tolerance in the present climate is not aimed at people who do the wrong thing.

Its aimed at group identities whos separate group status isolates them from common expectations. By their own group environment.

Identity politics.

They will not be meeting expectations, Because the group identity refuses to recognize that all breeders are in the same basket.

Because you share a group identity, that doesn't confer the right to ignore broader community expectation, or to enforce that 'group' expectation on the broader community.

Responsibility doesn't put a single group identity 1st, and still expect broader support.

That just absolves individuals of responsibility to the community, for a group identity they have little ability to influence. Because a group identity is founded on what separates it from the community, as long as it comes 1st.

Ultimate responsibility is to the community. The environment that supports them and demands value in return.

That value needs to be demonstrated. Not just the costs the community or environment should not have to pay.

A group identity as 1st priority can't respond to community demands with out 1st reaching a consensus AS a group identity.

Their values( or 'standards' ) as an identity come 1st, so are pretty much fixed in time, instead of responding to the demands and expectations set by the environment that supports it. That would require new standards that conflict with the group identity as its been set and accepted.

So a shared identity apart from the general community must actively include the community in POSITIVE, demonstrated and shared values. Or it will ultimately be pressured by demands and expectations it can't meet. A victim of its own separatist ideals that do not benefit the environment it exists in.

Until people recognize all breeders are in the same basket, start talking about what expectations we ALL as a community share, how can you possibly insist a single group identity offers more value than any other to the community and have people believe that? By whos criteria?

I guess the Greyhound industry thought the values they demonstrated brought benefits too. To the Greyhound industries.

The Grey hound industry is in strife because the shared identity, distinct from other community dog interest groups, did not allow for adaptation and change to suit more modern community expectations. It was not offering value worth supporting to any one other than the Greyhound industry. The costs of carrying that BY the community are seen as too high.

There are an awful lot of other identity groups failing the community because they are doing just fine, thank you very much, under the standards and values their group understands better than any outsider ever can.

To place personal identity with a distinct group 1st, fails to contribute value to the HUMAN community. Group identity as 1st identity is unable to adapt and take responsibility for how that group is perceived, and respond to that. It responds to the group, not the environment or community that holds it.

So pressures to meet demands will be seen as group persecution. They are victims of their environment, not a force to improve it through their own actions as individuals demonstrating improvement.

Edited July 12, 2016 by moosmum

[Katdogs]

One of the first signs that something was really amiss was the shock resignation of Greyhound Racing NSW's (GRNSW) integrity auditor in July 2012.

David Landa, a former chief magistrate and NSW Ombudsman, quit his position issuing an ominous warning: that legislative failings made independent oversight of the code impossible.

My exclusive interview with Mr Landa revealed that the industry been left without proper checks and balances and he warned "nowhere in the world would such an industry be allowed to self-regulate in this way".

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/greyhound-racing-ban-how-a-single-call-triggered-the-sunherald-investigation-20160709-gq22k4.html#ixzz4Dz2MDukV

Yeah. If David Landa couldn't fix it, maybe the 'winding up' should have started then?

[Steve]

Ive just had a conversation with a local working dog breeder - his dogs are well known and around here he can pull up to 30.000 for them. He shoots most of every litter .The difference is no one knows how many he breeds or how many he culls- begs the question - how many dogs of other breeds get PTS and we already know there are tons of working dogs ending up in rescue.

[Maddy]

Maddy:

It's easy to brush these issues off when it's not the breed you love. Someone actually said to me yesterday that I could always just have whippets because they're pretty much the same thing as a greyhound (which is hilariously wrong), and then that they'd be okay with seeing the complete extinction of the racing greyhound in Australia if it meant racing would be gone. Obviously this person doesn't own and love greyhounds. Personally, I can't imagine life without a couple of ex racers but it looks like their days in Australia could be numbered.

Yep. Indicative of the level of knowledge that's driving much of the current discussion.

God forbid what is going to happen the dogs placed with inexperienced rescues who think they are just big spindly generic dogs. The idea that Greyhounds are sleepy couch potatoes that require no effort from an owner does the dogs a considerable disservice - especially the young ones.

I know owners who will PTS their dogs rather than have them in the wrong homes. Chained to a kennel and used for pigging or left uncoated and ignored in back yards? I'd PTS too.

I predict a rise in the abuse of greyhounds. It will move from the racing to the pet environment. A tragedy for the breed.

But people on this forum push the adoption of greyhounds on the grounds they are the dog for the lazy person, that they're couch potatoes that only need a 20 minute walk each day.

If anyone asks me for information about the breed, they get my honest opinion- they are generally easy dogs in certain respects but they are not a dog for everyone. It's a pros/cons thing, same as any other breed. They don't need much brushing but they do need regular nail trims. They don't need long walks but they do need some opportunity for free running in a safe environment. They are usually very dog sociable but many fret if left without company. And so on and so forth. They are a great dog for people who understand and appreciate sighthounds. For someone who think they're getting a tall, skinny labrador.. they're going to be very disappointed.

Kirty (I think?) made a very good point about young greys, too. Until they get to about 2 years of age, most greys are lunatics. Greyhound puppies (up to about 15/6 months) are adorable but they're also a lot of work and seem to spend a lot longer being awful teenagers.

Anyways.. debating the pros/cons of the impending ban seems like it's flogging a dead horse at this point. It's not a black or white thing and as I've said before, a lot of the issues are very complicated (and often not even close to what gets reported in the mainstream media).

My concern is for the breed I love. It's all too easy to accuse that of being "selfish" when it's not your breed that's potentially on the chopping block.

[Steve]

I dont believe it will get through parliament anyway. Lots of National MPs and now the Labor leader are standing against it .

[asal]

Ive just had a conversation with a local working dog breeder - his dogs are well known and around here he can pull up to 30.000 for them. He shoots most of every litter .The difference is no one knows how many he breeds or how many he culls- begs the question - how many dogs of other breeds get PTS and we already know there are tons of working dogs ending up in rescue.

that is the difference today compared to 50 - 60 years ago.

All breeders culled any that fell below a minimum quality of life standard, be it canine, bovine, ovine, equine, porcine or Caprine just to name a few.

I well remember the lady who phoned me to ask could she get her bitch mated as she hoped it would improve her attitude to her new baby. It wanted to attack her child as soon as she and her husband came home from hospital with their newborn baby. Warning bells went off immediately, the bitch in question being a breed that is famous for its love of family, all its owners family, babies in particular. This individual was most definitely not displaying true to her breed behavior. Last thing she should be doing is breeding from it.

She was pretty shocked when I told her my dad would have shot it, on the proviso that although it looked like its breed it had completely failed the temperament test. In that instance compromise was reached in that the bitch was desexed AND most importantly never kept where it or their child could gain access to each other.

Edited July 11, 2016 by asal

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

The ANKC has the power to get rid of unethical breeders inside its own ranks and promote those standards as the only ethical option for puppy buyers

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly.

Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter.

NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous?

Edited July 11, 2016 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[WoofnHoof]

The ANKC has the power to get rid of unethical breeders inside its own ranks and promote those standards as the only ethical option for puppy buyers

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly.

Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter.

NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous?

It is no longer the job of the government to fix the problem. It is the job of industry to fix it. Government has been extricating itself from regulatory roles for quite some time now, none of this should be a surprise. If an industry cannot show it self able to self regulate it is not considered a viable indsutry any more.

[Steve]

The ANKC has the power to get rid of unethical breeders inside its own ranks and promote those standards as the only ethical option for puppy buyers

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly.

Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter.

NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous?

Over and over again I say this - in NSW the ANKC breeders and any other person who breeds a litter of puppies have the same standards. Dogs NSW do not have higher requirements on their breeders than the state codes - the ONLY things that are in their codes which are not in the state codes is the requirements to register dogs and criteria for registration on their registry.

In Victoria Vicdogs members do have different requirements but they are way less for Vicdogs breeders with less accountability for how they keep and manage their dogs who say they own less than 10 fertile dogs. In every other state other than Victoria in fact in every other place in the world ALL breeders have to do what is required by any person breeding dogs. All breeders have the same accountability to the council and RSPCA etc except in Victoria where these breeders have an exemption from complying with codes for breeding dogs. The VICdogs codes go no where near the crap that's in the codes.

For me I believe that the exemptions afforded Vicdogs members who have less than 10 fertile dogs in Victoria are akin to the type of self regulation the greyhound industry has had and its a disaster waiting to happen. Just recently we have seen two registered breeders in the spot light . This is why the MDBA will not at least until things change apply for exemptions for our members in Victoria.

However. I think the point is being missed .This shamozzle with the greys isnt about whether people have complied with codes and ethics - its about the welfare - the perceived cruelty involved in how they are trained and the high kill rate - if there is ever going to be a stop on purebred breeders its going to be on welfare not codes and ethics notably the show ring and the breeding of dogs with conformational features that make them suffer and interfere with their quality of life. If that happens and I cant see how it wont happen the same things will be said - they have had years to show improvement in these breeds blah blah blah.

Throwing a breeder out because they breached the code of ethics means nothing to whether someone can still breed dogs or as to whether they do a great job - all it shows is that they put in the wrong paperwork or used the wrong dog etc according to the registry criteria.

[Steve]

The ANKC has the power to get rid of unethical breeders inside its own ranks and promote those standards as the only ethical option for puppy buyers

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly.

Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter.

NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous?

It is no longer the job of the government to fix the problem. It is the job of industry to fix it. Government has been extricating itself from regulatory roles for quite some time now, none of this should be a surprise. If an industry cannot show it self able to self regulate it is not considered a viable indsutry any more.

Correct so if an organisation simply doesn't see that they are not only not seeing it but encouraging the breeding of dogs with less quality of life than they should when the rest of the world says you cannot do this on your own - you have had years to fix this etc so here we come we shouldnt be surprised .Yet we puff up our chests and tell the world we are better. Mark my words do something about it or it will come.

[moosmum]

The ANKC has the power to get rid of unethical breeders inside its own ranks and promote those standards as the only ethical option for puppy buyers

I think they might have to start enforcing their own rules if various governments are just going to wave a magic wand and shut down an entire industry because some are treating animals badly.

Just look at all the puppy farms... I'm sure the RSPCA would shut more down if they could prove there was a problem and when they did there were sufficient sanctions to stop repeat offences. There's a double whammy - proving what looks obvious to us - isn't so easy with the current law, and when they do successfully prosecute the most appalling cases - the offenders get slapped with a tiny fine as if animal cruelty doesn't matter.

NSW and other governments are using the wrong fix for the wrong problem - similar to BSL applied in Victoria - not dealing with the source of the problem or preventing dog bites etc. Will end up like Italy with 95 different dog breeds banned or declared dangerous?

It is no longer the job of the government to fix the problem. It is the job of industry to fix it. Government has been extricating itself from regulatory roles for quite some time now, none of this should be a surprise. If an industry cannot show it self able to self regulate it is not considered a viable indsutry any more.

Its NOT the job of Govt. and its not the job of ANKC or any other group. Its an individual responsibility to the community. Not to a group you identify with.

Where the K.Cs fall down is in promoting the group ( pedigree breeders) as the solution. Instead of the practices and knowledge that provide solutions. Theres an inability to demonstrate the proof of them while the pedigree itself is required 1st, for recognition of good practice to be aknowledged.

The group identity supercedes community expectations.

If pedigree certification is needed before a K.Cs can aknowledge good practice or results, they are not taking or promoting responsibility for good practice and results. Only for a group identity defined by a pedigree.

A breed will eventualy fail to meet community expectations while its identity is decided by groups in specified isolation from that community.

No self appointed "group" identity can better its environment from the perspective of that group alone. The environment/community as a whole will decide direction and validity. But it MUST be given the ability to respond effectively, thru promotion of SHARED values and demonstrations of their benefits.

A single, isolated group identity can only operate on beliefs, truth from its own perspective. Other environments face different realities. Their relevance can't be ignored with out risking chaos.

World politics ATM. attests to that. A group can not replace personal responsibility with group beliefs. Individuals respond for change to occur. Groups can only provide an environment to encourage it.

A 1st group identity divides us into group identities, based on beliefs, not realities.

Edited July 12, 2016 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

MM:

No self appointed "group" identity can better its environment from the perspective of that group alone. The environment/community as a whole will decide direction and validity. But it MUST be given the ability to respond effectively, thru promotion of SHARED values and demonstrations of their benefits.

This kind of rhetoric sounds fine in theory. In reality there are a myriad of conflicting values held by society and it is up to the democratic process to resile them.

A process thrown to the wind by Mr Baird by his picking one of 78 recommendations from the Commission's report and announcing it as a done deal. Where is the community deciding THIS as a whole???

The amount of misinformation surrounding this issue is, quite simply, astounding.

Most people are responding emotionally. Fair enough. But they are responding to limited facts and a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

Lets start with the "facts" that Greyhound racing is banned in most US states. And Greyhounds all sleep 22 hours a day and will be thrilled to live in your 2 bedroom flat while you work 10 hours a day.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Haredown Whippets

[moosmum]

MM:

No self appointed "group" identity can better its environment from the perspective of that group alone. The environment/community as a whole will decide direction and validity. But it MUST be given the ability to respond effectively, thru promotion of SHARED values and demonstrations of their benefits.

This kind of rhetoric sounds fine in theory. In reality there are a myriad of conflicting values held by society and it is up to the democratic process to resile them.

A process thrown to the wind by Mr Baird by his picking one of 78 recommendations from the Commission's report and announcing it as a done deal. Where is the community deciding THIS as a whole???

The amount of misinformation surrounding this issue is, quite simply, astounding.

Most people are responding emotionally. Fair enough. But they are responding to limited facts and a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

Lets start with the "facts" that Greyhound racing is banned in most US states. And Greyhounds all sleep 22 hours a day and will be thrilled to live in your 2 bedroom flat while you work 10 hours a day.

Then who should take responsibility for seeing correct information is given? Where are these individuals who will stand up and take that responsibility? It starts with individuals.

You see a problem and understand that a better response is available. Who has the ability to respond? Who is going to take response- ability?

Not the organization that is 1st consideration of identity.. Its only responsible for itself. It will not be held responsible for individual identity. There can be no such thing in its select individuality. Its identity is set. It IS an individual with fixed traits. An identity.

Who is going to see the community has the correct tools ( or information ) on the best ways to deal with these problems if they they are the preserve only of specialist group identities. Theres no one left to co ordinate responses to every ones benefit.

If you have the ability to respond then you have an ability to use it. Thats taking responsibility.

By making sure people see your purpose benefits THEM. And they want to respond to it to get the most out of it. We can avoid B.S.L because people understand their own ability to respond as individuals to a need.

Edited July 12, 2016 by moosmum

[WoofnHoof]

I'm telling you how it is. Not how it should be. Like it or not the ANKC represents a large proportion of the dog breeding sector, therefore if they are not seen to be acting against those who do the wrong thing the whole sector will be viewed as complicit. Cruelty and waste are not to be tolerated any more. No ifs. No buts.

The realty is that the industry is seen as a whole unit by the community, and it is the community which decides their fate. Outside of dog circles the ban has been welcomed. The greyhound racing people coming out and saying they have millions of $ to fight the ban is only making the public more convinced that they had the power to change but lacked the will.

[Salukifan]

The ANKC is 20% of the dog breeding sector. And that excludes Greyhounds

[Steve]

I'm telling you how it is. Not how it should be. Like it or not the ANKC represents a large proportion of the dog breeding sector, therefore if they are not seen to be acting against those who do the wrong thing the whole sector will be viewed as complicit. Cruelty and waste are not to be tolerated any more. No ifs. No buts.

The realty is that the industry is seen as a whole unit by the community, and it is the community which decides their fate. Outside of dog circles the ban has been welcomed. The greyhound racing people coming out and saying they have millions of $ to fight the ban is only making the public more convinced that they had the power to change but lacked the will.

Better go and look at the figures the - ANKC is very much a minority group in fact in 2015 only 79 breeders in australia who were registered with the ANKC had 10 litters and defining the wrong - this is the tricky bit . Some people don't see any wrong in dogs being humanely PTS if they don't work or run fast enough - some call it wastage and animal cruelty but others call it life. There is nothing in the animal cruelty laws which defines culling dogs which don't cut the grade humanely a criminal or even a cruel act. Some people think killing a dog for any reason unacceptable - look at the thread re rescue dogs who are aggressive .So its O.K. to kill a dog because it has a temperament that doesn't fit requirements for quick and easy placement in a family but not O.K. to kill a dog that doesn't fit requirements for winning races or herding sheep and cant be quickly and appropriately rehomed?

How do you expect that they the ANKC will act against those doing the wrong thing by ever growing community standards when they encourage it and actually have regs which govern maintaining. I can just see them going after a pug breeder and throwing them out because they have bred dogs with breathing problems.

So in all seriousness what do you see as things which are wrong or some of their members are doing wrong that they should be acting against - that there is a reasonable expectation that they would act against?

[WoofnHoof]

I'm telling you how it is. Not how it should be. Like it or not the ANKC represents a large proportion of the dog breeding sector, therefore if they are not seen to be acting against those who do the wrong thing the whole sector will be viewed as complicit. Cruelty and waste are not to be tolerated any more. No ifs. No buts.

The realty is that the industry is seen as a whole unit by the community, and it is the community which decides their fate. Outside of dog circles the ban has been welcomed. The greyhound racing people coming out and saying they have millions of $ to fight the ban is only making the public more convinced that they had the power to change but lacked the will.

Better go and look at the figures the - ANKC is very much a minority group in fact in 2015 only 79 breeders in australia who were registered with the ANKC had 10 litters and defining the wrong - this is the tricky bit . Some people don't see any wrong in dogs being humanely PTS if they don't work or run fast enough - some call it wastage and animal cruelty but others call it life. There is nothing in the animal cruelty laws which defines culling dogs which don't cut the grade humanely a criminal or even a cruel act. Some people think killing a dog for any reason unacceptable - look at the thread re rescue dogs who are aggressive .So its O.K. to kill a dog because it has a temperament that doesn't fit requirements for quick and easy placement in a family but not O.K. to kill a dog that doesn't fit requirements for winning races or herding sheep and cant be quickly and appropriately rehomed?

How do you expect that they the ANKC will act against those doing the wrong thing by ever growing community standards when they encourage it and actually have regs which govern maintaining. I can just see them going after a pug breeder and throwing them out because they have bred dogs with breathing problems.

So in all seriousness what do you see as things which are wrong or some of their members are doing wrong that they should be acting against - that there is a reasonable expectation that they would act against?

The figures the public sees are the figures that matter. Thousands of young animals euthanised for not being suitable, thousands of animals tortured for the sport. Societies which represent breeds and breeders hold the future in their hands. For example knowing the huge euthanasia rates in greys why does the association not restrict breeding to numbers that are more sustainable? We know why, because registration $ are important, but that just proves the point that money trumps welfare in the these bodies which have the power to enact change but refuse to do so.

"It wasn't me" isn't going to be enough when the question is asked "why didn't you do anything?"

You know what the issues are in the dog world just as I know what the issues are in the horse world, address those issues and be seen doing it. If someone's poor practices are tolerated by the governing bodies we need to ask why. If everything is perfect and no one ever does the wrong thing then show it. If someone does the wrong thing show how they are dealt with.

Was listening to Temple Grandin speak the other day, she said "don't let bad become normal" "we can't escape the phone camera it's everywhere". She hammered the point that industry has to be open and honest and seen to be addressing the issues. It was in the context of production animals but it applies across the board I think.

Essentially we need to address issues, zero tolerance, and be seen to be addressing them. If someone is breeding so many they need to cull a significant portion then that is not best practice and not sustainable. The public isn't going to care if it's only one person doing it they are going to ask why is that one person still allowed to do this. Why didn't anyone who knew about it put a stop to it? So why didn't we?

[mita]

WnH, that's a great quote from Temple Grandin to generally tuck away.

Saw/heard couple interesting 'takes' this week. BTW I don't necessarily agree with the 'takes', but they add to the debate:

Came across a woman with a greyhound waiting outside a local store for a relative. I stopped & spoke to her.

She has, for many years, helped with the rehoming of greyhounds from a well-known, ethically & practically well- organised greyhound owner/trainer. She said his position was that, by following the best practices of animal husbandry, there's a reduction in less 'able' dogs. So there'd be less so-called 'wastage'. But, given he will still have greys that don't make the racing grade, he takes it on himself to organise rehoming in co-operation with this lady. Both of them work at a base where the greys are likely to adapt well to being close companion dogs.

BUT his position on banning greyhound racing as an industry (with gambling), is that he can understand why it's being called for. He reckons the breeding & rehoming standards he follows, based as much on welfare as on producing good racers, never will be the norm because of the nature of the business. Even tho' he believes it should be.

It was interesting how lots of passers-by spotted the greyhound & came up to talk with her because of what's appeared in the News in the past year & now. They were so happy to ask questions of someone in the industry & who knew greyhounds well. To give her credit, she gave a realistic account. I came away with the thought that members of the public really appreciate the chance to talk to a 'real' greyhound person (even if it was just that person's particular view).

The second was an edition of the ABC's The Drum. Journalist from The Australian, Carolyn, & one from the Sydney Morning Herald, Mark (I think) Kenny, both speaking personally.

Carolyn said she had family in Victoria who race greys & they do it as well as they can. But she believed greyhound racing as a money-making industry with a gambling base, has had its day in terms of community standards. She said dogs are now regarded as 'man's best friend' & should be given the best opportunity to be so. Loss of jobs would be 'natural' attrition. She likened it to whaling, which once was a significant industry, but then had its day & was closed down in this country.

The SMH man said, from what he saw, the greys actually loved the racing & he couldn't see any intrinsic cruelty in that (only that good vet care could be needed). So he saw the problem being how the greys were treated as 'economic' & 'race performance' units with some pretty cruel practices getting in behind the scenes. And he didn't like that at all.

The program ran out of time, but I wished they'd had time to flesh out if there was any way greys & their owners could simply enjoy racing... but outside an 'industry' structure Also the president of the greyhound trainers association was on the panel & he didn't have time to spell out what he said was a recent innovation. Each greyhound was given an ID when born which would permit tracking & accountability re what eventually happened to it

Edited July 12, 2016 by mita

[Salukifan]

The program ran out of time, but I wished they'd had time to flesh out if there was any way greys & their owners could simply enjoy racing... but outside an 'industry' structure Also the president of the greyhound trainers association was on the panel & he didn't have time to spell out what he said was a recent innovation. Each greyhound was given an ID when born which would permit tracking & accountability re what eventually happened to it

Of course there is. It's the model followed in most American states that the anti-racing brigade would have you believe have banned it.

No "commercial" racing. No professional trainers. Just hobby people racing the dogs they keep at home.

And a whole bunch of regulation.

[Sheridan]

I've seen a fair few posts likening the greyhound industry to the end of whaling. The issue with this analogy is that whaling didn't (mostly) end due to community attitudes as has been suggested. It ended because of the development of vegetable oils instead of whale oil in margarines and because of the development of kerosene for oil lamps.